INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION lxxv
Or, 'for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.'
Or, 'An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee.' Etc., etc.
These suggestions are given only to indicate how psychiatrists can help future historians.
4. EDUCATION FOR INTELLIGENCE AND DEMOCRACY
It may become clearer why I speak of a dying, aristotelian, two-valued system by giving examples of how this type of evaluation is at the foundation of present day confusions and terrors. Thus, for instance, the Nazi militant delusion of 'chosen people' gives us an excellent illustration of a two-valued, 'either-or' orientation. The two-valued semantic twisting of 'real neutrality' is another significant example. This distortion has kept the 'neutrals' in terrors, disorganizing their national and political life to the point of complete collapse, which today is a historical fact. The Nazi two-valued evaluation of 'neutrality' was: either be 'really neutral' and endorse and fight for the Nazis, or be 'not really neutral' and not help them. According to this orientation a 'really neutral' Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, etc., should fight against England, France, etc., to prove that they are 'really neutral'!
A similar analysis applies to the 'aggression' of China against Japan, Czechoslovakia against Germany, Poland against Germany, Poland against Russia, Finland against Russia, Greece against Italy, etc., and so on endlessly, which shows only the pathological application of the two-valued, 'either-or' patterns in action. This analysis applies also to the first World War and the 'war guilt'. In a non-aristotelian orientation we ask for actual facts, and do not accept mere verbalism. Who invaded whom ? The historical facts are simple. We know by now who invaded whom, and never mind verbal definitions.
When analysed from a non-aristotelian point of view, such orientations appear pathologically twisted. Yet they produced results, as history shows. It is not accidental that some years ago Hitler in one of his speeches took a definite stand for the prevailing aristotelianism, two-valued orientations, etc., and against modern science, which naturally develops in a non-aristotelian direction. Quite soon whole volumes will